They should lose their accreditation for even suggesting that they would do this. The college itself has demonstrated a complete lack of higher-level critical and analytic thinking; how can it now be expected to pass on these traits to students?

netizencain:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

If the law has to be written in a manner to exclude you based on your religion... that's the same damn thing!

Problem is you have to read the back end of that sentence "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

Is making the Amish participate in Social Security violating their religious belief that any form of insurance is immoral as it indicates a lack of trust in god? (or to make that example more up to date, How will the individual mandate fare against Christian Scientists claiming they have a right NOT to have insurance since they don't believe in modern medicine)

How about a requirement that kids attend school until they are 16 (again Amish and some Mennonites believe that any schooling beyond the 6th grade level is immoral because it will make the person vain and proud of what they know)

What about using a drug in a religious ceremony that the federal government has banned?

Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

Human sacrifice?

Up until recently the Supreme Court had been severely limiting "free exercise" challenges to "laws of general jurisdiction" which is to say a law passed for a general and non-discriminatory purpose that just happened to infringe on a person's religious freedom. This started in the Smith case where the court ruled that a guy could be fired for failing a drug test even when he was authentically native American and the drug was taken during a religious ceremony.

Whereupon the court heard city of Boerne V. Flores in which the SCOTUS eesentially told Congress to blow it out their assholes, and overturn RFRA saying it was the COURT and not Congress who had the power to define what an infringement of religious freedom looked like, and since the court had already said in Smith that Free exercise had not been violated, Congress had no intrinsic power under the 14th amendment to pass RFRA

Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.

Right..which is why there is a big fight right now in DC about whether the regional accreditation bodies should even exist. Several proposals have been floated: one to move accreditation to the federal education department and one to move it to state departments of higher education. The proposal to move it to the states has the stronger support but it has been delayed. In any event, independent accreditation is basically a dodo right now--it's gong to die the only question is where is it going to go.

serial_crusher:Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives Liberty theirs

Cyclometh:serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

Is accreditation all that important? The high school I went to, a private Catholic institution, wasn't accredited. It was lacking "related art" classes (art & music classes). Didn't stop the vast majority of us from going on to college....

kbronsito:My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.

Good on him. Sometimes, when honey doesn't work, a dash of vinegar in your opponent's mouth does, in fact, cause him to stop grinning in denial.

Dr Dreidel:serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives LibertyBob Jones University theirs

FTFYLiberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.

rjakobi:I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.

You do realize there are GLBT christians and teaching jobs aren't plentiful.

Wife went to college near there. Gordon kids used to come to athletic events at wife's college to tell everyone they were going to hell. Good times. I also work with people who went there, and once (while discussion how to teach the age of the universe with one of our other science guys, since that's the type of stuff we do) offended one of them by joking about the devil burring dinosaur bones to fool us. So aside from the general issue of them being homophobes, I'm also rooting against them for personal reasons.

Best thing an accreditation organization could do is stop pretending a place of ignorance and hate is actually a place of higher learning.

Lordserb:Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:

* Trims his beard* Eats shellfish* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)* Burns honey* Touches unclean animals* Has messy hair* Tears their clothes* Drinks alcohol in holy places* Eats pork or rabbit* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle* Reaps the very edges of a field* Lies* Steals* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground* Commits fraud against other people* Bears a grudge* Mixes fabrics in their clothing* Cross-breeds animals* Plants different seeds in the same field* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it* Reads their horoscope* Uses a Magic 8-ball* Cuts their hair at the sides* Gets tattoos* Mistreats foreigners* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy* Works on Sunday* Sells land permanently* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Yet somehow, the only one of these rules from Leviticus that the Christian assholes get their panties in a twist about is the one about not laying with another man. It doesn't even mention lesbianism, specifically, and the line about laying with another man is mixed in with all the above garbage in Old Testament B.S. rules about what is and is not an "abomination".

If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.

FTFA: executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs. Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law. But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate. Don't take the tax dollars.

APO_Buddha:FTFYLiberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.

Not for nothing, but SCACS is the "RANDPAUL License" of accreditation - The South Carolina Association of Christian Schools.

So while you're technically correct, it's not like a credential issued by Liberty is much better. if you're part of the crowd, the name of the institution matters more than any accreditation. If you're not hip to the jive, Liberty might as well have Klingon accreditation.

// last month, I learned Liberty U is not too far from Floyd, VA (hippieville)

TheOtherMisterP:The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?

Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it. They're sick in the head when it comes to their sexual upbringing. They seem to have to impose their sexual desires and fears on everyone else. It's twisted.

kbronsito:Nix Nightbird: * Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground

No five second rule!

Well, more specifically it's grapes that have fallen to the ground in your vineyard, but the way they branch out to lesbianism with the "lay with another man" thing, I think we can branch out the grape thing to include any grapes that touch any ground, anywhere.

rjakobi:I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.

Not all Christians hate gays. Half the homosexuals I know are Christian. Hell, not all of them are even liberal Christians. I am from Texas, so the general population is more religious and conservative, of course.

WanPhat:serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

No. Accreditation blackmail for non-academic reasons is okay if it's for currently popular social causes.

So you'd be totally okay with say Bob Jones Universality being fully accredited, even though they forbid interracial dating, for example, just so long as they have a good English department?

Seems to me the accreditation process is essentially the issuing body's imprimatur, on the degrees issued by the receiving body, the acredditors saying they have examined the quality of the educational experience imparted by the school and you can trust them that the degree holder is ready and able to work in their field for which they hold a degree. If those social environment in which the degree is issued is too warped this may not be true.

This has become a pretty big Issue for Patrick Henry College(aka "Harvard for the Homeschooled", just up the road from me. Their education is top notch as long as it is not biology (young earth creationists ya see) and they focus on things like political science, so during the bush years they placed as many interns at the White House as the real Harvard, and Their graduates were prized as staffers for GOP congressman because of their "ideological purity"

The problem was these young men (it was almost invariably men) came from an environment where women were expected to work only until they got married (and or paid off student loans), where men were expected to rebuke women for things like "immodest dress" or otherwise "Stumbling" the men (causing them to think sinful things) and men wer expected to take the lead in most discussions or conferences.

You can imagine that went over like a wet fart in crowded elevator when these people got onto the hill and had to try to make nice with lobbyists , other staffers, even female members of Congress from their own party